Skip to content


Vaithinatha Iyer Vs. Kuppu thevan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.572
AppellantVaithinatha Iyer
RespondentKuppu thevan
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 256, 257 and 526 - transfer application to superior magistrate--duty of magistrate to adjourn--accused given opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses or cite defence witnesses--duty to give another opportunity. - .....that duty is confined to cases where the application is to be to the high court; section 526, criminal procedure code. it appears from the record that the requirements of section 256 as to requiring the accused to state whether he wishes to cross-examine any witness were complied with. there is no provision requiring the magistrate to offer an opportunity to the accused to have his witnesses summoned. it is his right to apply and he did not exercise it. i set aside the order for re-trial and direct the sub-divisional magistrate to take the appeal on his file and dispose of it according to law.
Judgment:
ORDER

Napier, J.

1. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is based on grounds which do not support it. There is no duty cast on a Magistrate to adjourn a case because an application is being made to a superior Magistrate for transfer. That duty is confined to cases where the application is to be to the High Court; Section 526, Criminal Procedure Code. It appears from the record that the requirements of Section 256 as to requiring the accused to state whether he wishes to cross-examine any witness were complied with. There is no provision requiring the Magistrate to offer an opportunity to the accused to have his witnesses summoned. It is his right to apply and he did not exercise it. I set aside the order for re-trial and direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take the appeal on his file and dispose of it according to law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //